B-Greek: The Biblical Greek Forum

Forum rules
Please quote the Greek text you are discussing directly in your post if it is reasonably short - do not ask people to look it up. This is not a beginner's forum, competence in Greek is assumed.

You seem pretty close-minded to considering other possible meanings than the one you have closed your mind to. I say that in jest. I used "close-minded" in the opposite sense I believe "open-minded" is intended to convey. Open in the sense of open to the truth, open to correction. We must always remain teachable. However, I am of the opinion that we can arrive at truth in the study of Scripture, so I am not "open-minded" in the sense that anything goes.

timothy_p_mcmahon wrote:Nor does LSJ give 'open-minded' as a meaning for εὐγενής.

The complete text of the Menander's Dyscolus ("The grouchy old man") was only discovered in 1957, so the sense of "open-minded" not being in the LSJ can not be taken to mean that LSJ do not support (would not have supported) that meaning (nor of course does it mean that they would have either).

For those interested, an English translation of the play by VJ Rosivach can be read here at http://faculty.fairfield.edu/rosivach/c ... skolos.htm
and according to his rendering at least he sticks with the idea of "noble" in the sense of the virtue of being "generous", "unbegrudging", "not repaying others as they repaid you", "doing better than the masses".

timothy_p_mcmahon wrote:Is this just a contextually-motivated guess on BDAG's part

In the text you are looking at εὐγενής seems to have a praise-worthy character, and what is praise-worthy is soemthing to do with their diligence to the Word.

The immediate the verbal context of εὐγενής is ἐδέξαντο τὸν λόγον, and I think what you are considering is whether the meaning of εὐγενής is explicated by μετὰ πάσης προθυμίας "they are (more morally/ethically praise-worthy) [because] they received the Word very eagerly" or the meaning of εὐγενής is explicated by καθ’ ἡμέραν ἀνακρίνοντες τὰς γραφὰς εἰ ἔχοι ταῦτα οὕτως, "(and more than just receiving the word very eagerly, and those blokes actually looked into it to see whether there was anything in the Bible (what we now call the OT) to see if it supported what they were hearing preached to them." That is to say that they were better because they looked into it.

So in effect there are three options, they recieved the word per se ("they were not hostile to the Word"), they received it very eagerly (more than other people) ("not half-heartedly"), or they studied it to make sure of it ("not just blind/unthinking belief and obedience" or perhaps similar to when we take formal or informal Bible college training courses at some point in our walk as we personally grow into the faith that we were born with). It is clear that BDAG has taken the second option μετὰ πάσης προθυμίας as the explication of εὐγενής. Personally, I favour the third option, that they took the faith that touched their hearts, and they studied it extensively.

Despite it's size and complexity, in most cases, using BDAG is like joining the dots to form a picture in a children's book. A person with a good command of grammar, who works through a text and just mechanically take the BDAG meaning and fill in the blanks will arrive at a BDAG-like translation. But, of course, if as in the verse you are considering Acts 17:11, we may question or not want to take the suggested meaning offered by BDAG.

Sometimes when dictionaries refer to or quote other authours, they may just be acting as a concordance rather than a dictionary, so there is no need to assume that the dictionary calling them as witnesses so strongly. Another point about the methodology of taking classical authours as primary evidence is that they are distant in time, and to some degree in morality. That is to say that if you read the New Testament considering all the words about virtue to be derived from philosophical and ethical works, then you will probably read it a little more like a philosophical work than it was intended to be read. BDAG doesn't often look forward to the next four hundred years as much as it looks back to preceding four hundred years of word usage. So, in using the dictionary, there is an inherent methodological bias that you need to take into consideration when considering the meaning of difficult words or words in difficult passages. As Byzantine studies and patristic studies are not so developed as classical studies are. It is clear that Byzantine, Patristic and Classical studies are of course interrelated disciplines.

Is this just a contextually-motivated guess on BDAG's part, or is there proof in the pudding?

BDAG also cites as secondary literature for this meaning: FDanker, NTS 10, '64, 366f. This is none other than Danker's own article on the issue, entitled "Menander and the New Testament." For the proof of this pudding, the eating is found in Danker's detailed analysis there about the word, both in Menander and in Acts 17:11.

In general, I've found BDAG's citations to the secondary literature to be very edifying. I would strongly encourage anyone who is seriously studying what a particular word means to follow up on and consult the references that Danker has provided.

I was Fred Danker's colleague from 1954 till his death, and I often visited him in his apartment, where he had his extensive collection of Greek texts, inscriptions, etc. He read very widely in ancient Greek texts, from Homer into the Byzantine period.

He decided to keep many of the older references to secondary literature in the lexicon because too many students looked only at the most recent publications and disregarded older materials which often had valuable insights. The result is an extremely rich resource which too few really mine.

Add to that he decided against giving single word translations of Greek terms. Rather he opted for true definitions in longer descriptions of what a term mean. He was an outstanding linguist. The BDAG articles shouild never be read simply to look for his "translation" of a term in a given passage. He provides the data to determine the linguistic field in which term exists, offers the possibilities for interpretation, and invites you to mine his materials t4o arrive at an independent conclusion about the overtones, to use a musical metaphor, that resonate in a Greek term.

Ed Krentz

Edgar Krentz
Prof. Emeritus of NT
Lutheran School of Theology at Chicago

ed krentz wrote:The BDAG articles shouild never be read simply to look for his "translation" of a term in a given passage. He provides the data to determine the linguistic field in which term exists, offers the possibilities for interpretation, and invites you to mine his materials t4o arrive at an independent conclusion about the overtones, to use a musical metaphor, that resonate in a Greek term.

This is good advice, and perhaps some more capable students would be able to do that.

I apologise if my tone in my posts was disrespectful. In the light of the biography you have provided, I see more clearly that it is the man who makes the book, not the book that makes the man - the artisan is responsible for his work and not for the use that others make of the tool he has fashioned.